Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Mayflower Insurance Co. v. Mahan

180 Ill. App. 3d 213 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Mayflower Insurance Co. v. Mahan

13 Citing cases

  1. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos. v. Bugailiskis

    278 Ill. App. 3d 19 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 17 times
    In Bugailiskis, the court declared an arbitration clause, which bound the insured in all circumstances but did not bind the insurance company if the award exceeded the minimum liability amount, to be void on public policy grounds.

    Illinois law encourages arbitration as a means of reducing litigation in the court system. Charles O. Finley Co. v. Kuhn, 569 F.2d 527 (7th Cir. 1978); Mayflower Insurance Co. v. Mahan, 180 Ill. App.3d 213, 217 (1988). However, an arbitration clause is not against public policy merely because it permits nonbinding arbitration.

  2. American Family Mutual Ins. v. Stagg

    912 N.E.2d 1283 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 4 times
    Recognizing the presence of a trial de novo provision where the policy expressly provided a right to trial if the arbitral award exceeded a certain amount

    "Although Illinois case law does support arbitration as a means of settling disputes, Illinois has not gone so far as to change the terms of the contract to mandate binding arbitration when the parties have agreed otherwise." Mayflower Insurance Co. v. Mahan, 180 Ill. App. 3d 213, 217 (1988). Pursuant to the insurance policy, Stagg may seek a trial de novo in the circuit court because the $36,340.

  3. Parker v. American Family Insurance Co.

    296 Ill. App. 3d 110 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    E.g., Bugailiskis, 278 Ill. App.3d at 24, 662 N.E.2d at 558. Since our state encourages arbitration, whether it be binding or nonbinding, (see Mayflower Insurance Co. v. Mahan, 180 Ill. App.3d 213, 535 N.E.2d 924 (1988)), the policy considerations in the first line of reasoning are not relevant.

  4. Reed v. Farmers Insurance Group

    291 Ill. App. 3d 1068 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 4 times
    In Reed v. Farmers Insurance Group, 291 Ill. App.3d 1068 (1997), the third district declared section 143a unconstitutional.

    In Fireman's Fund Insurance Cos. v. Bugailiskis, 278 Ill. App.3d 19, 662 N.E.2d 555 (1996), the court determined that, in the underinsured motorist coverage context, the trial de novo clause violated public policy and was unenforceable. While specifically acknowledging the holding in Mayflower Insurance Co. v. Mahan, 180 Ill. App.3d 213, 535 N.E.2d 924 (1988), that nonbinding arbitration is not in itself violative of public policy, the court in Bugailiskis concluded that given the increased delay and cost associated with nonbinding arbitration, the unequal application of the escape clause, and the fact that the contract possessed many of the earmarks of a contract of adhesion, the trial de novo clause was violative of public policy. Bugailiskis, 278 Ill. App.3d 19, 662 N.E.2d 555.

  5. Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Rosen

    242 Ill. 2d 48 (Ill. 2011)   Cited 155 times
    Holding that not all contracts of adhesion "are so procedurally unconscionable as to be unenforceable"

    Rosen first argues that trial de novo provisions violate our public policy supporting arbitration because they do not promote the final, efficient, and economical resolution of disputes. However, as noted above, Illinois public policy does not require that arbitration be binding. See, e.g., Mayflower Insurance Co. v. Mahan, 180 Ill. App. 3d 213, 217 (1988). In addition to the decisions of our courts so holding, this fact is evident in the legislature's adoption of trial de novo provisions in the uninsured-motorist context.

  6. Stratford West v. Country Mutual Ins. Co.

    338 Ill. App. 3d 288 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 5 times
    In Stratford West Homeowners Association v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 788 N.E.2d 342, 343 (Ill App. Ct. 2003), the Illinois Appellate Court addressed precisely this issue, i.e., whether "an award made pursuant to an appraisal clause: (1) operate[s] as a final and binding resolution of the parties' dispute over the amount of the plaintiff's loss; and (2) foreclose[s] either party from subsequently maintaining an action in a court of law to determine the amount of the loss."

    710 ILCS 5/1 (West 2000). However, nonbinding arbitration exists in Illinois as a means of resolving disputes, and neither the Act nor Illinois case law mandates that all arbitration must be binding. Mayflower Insurance Co. v. Mahan, 180 Ill. App. 3d 213, 216-18 (1988). We see no reason to depart from our recent holding in DeGroot.

  7. Kost v. Farmers Automobile Insurance

    328 Ill. App. 3d 649 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 6 times
    In Kost v. Farmers Automobile Insurance Ass'n, 328 Ill. App. 3d 649 (2002), the appellate court considered an insured's attempt to enforce the trial de novo provision.

    The Bugailiskis court began by stating that, although Illinois law encourages arbitration in order to reduce litigation, trial de novo clauses are not against public policy. Bugailiskis, 278 Ill. App.3d at 21, 662 N.E.2d at 557 (citing American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Baaske, 213 Ill. App.3d 683, 688, 572 N.E.2d 308, 310 (1991); Mayflower Insurance Co. v. Mahan, 180 Ill. App.3d 213, 217, 535 N.E.2d 924, 926 (1988)). The court determined that the clause unfairly and unequivocally favors the insurer because it allows the insurer to avoid a high award while binding the insured to a lower one.

  8. Zimmerman v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Company

    317 Ill. App. 3d 360 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 19 times
    Defining “damages” as “a pecuniary compensation that may be recovered in the courts by a person who has suffered loss, detriment, or injury” and “payment” as “the fulfillment of a promise or the performance of an agreement”

    An arbitration agreement must be enforced to give effect to the intentions of the parties as expressed in the terms of the agreement. Mayflower Insurance Co. v. Mahan, 180 Ill. App.3d 213, 217 (1988). The language of an arbitration agreement itself governs the question of which issues are the subject of arbitration.

  9. Parker v. American Family Insurance Company

    315 Ill. App. 3d 431 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 10 times
    In Parker v. American Family Insurance Company, 315 Ill. App. 3d 431 (3d Dist. 2000), Parker, the insured, received $75,000 in an arbitration.

    E.g., Bugailiskis, 278 Ill. App.3d at 24, 662 N.E.2d at 558. Since our state encourages arbitration, whether it be binding or nonbinding (see Mayflower Insurance Co. v. Mahan, 180 Ill. App.3d 213, 535 N.E.2d 924 (1988)), the policy considerations in the first line of reasoning are not relevant. We need address solely whether the clause is void because it unfairly favors the insurer.

  10. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. v. Mandile

    192 Ariz. 216 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 27 times
    Finding provision of insurance contract void as against public policy

    A minority of jurisdictions has found no violation of public policy and enforces de novo trial provisions. Mayflower Ins. Co. v. Mahan, 535 N.E.2d 924 (Ill.App. 1988); Cohen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 555 A.2d 21 (N.J.Super. 1989); Bruch v. CNA Ins. Co., 870 P.2d 749 (N.M. 1994); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Jacobs, 617 N.Y.S.2d 360 (N.Y.App.Div. 1994); Lind v. Allstate Ins. Co., 895 P.2d 327 (Or.App.), modified, 902 P.2d 603 (1995); Huizar. Those cases have either centered on the fact that the parties contracted for the provision and therefore are entitled to the benefit of their bargain, or have upheld the provision for statutory reasons.